2nd Amendment Regulation

[HKuser]

Quote:
You still have as of yet to tell us why I should be restricted from owning something that causes no one else any harm nor infringes upon anyone else's rights.

You have yet to make the case for overturning NFA thru strict scrutiny like you asked me to do.

On NFA

Compelling state interest: There has never been a time in our history when fully automatic weapons were banned to the citizen by the federal government. It would be difficult to assert at this late date that suddenly there is a CSI to deny ownership. FA firearms are the primary infantry arm of today and fill the role of the musket of the colonial militia in that day. We have, however, for many years denied all firearms to certain classes, such as felons, and there is a CSI in excluding those classes, however, the legislation to achieve that interest is to be narrowly tailored using the least restrictive means necessary to serve that interest. There is a common law tradition pre-dating the Constitution that felons and the insane are unfit to be accorded the same unrestricted sphere of rights as other citizens for public safety. The transfer tax under the NFA was meant to be prohibitive and does not serve a CSI. The 1986 was meant to shrink the pool of available FA firearms and does not serve a CSI. Registration is 1934 was a means to serve the CSI at that time but we now have a instant check that serves the same purpose and checks the same records as the ATF's National Agency Check for NFA transfers. This serves as a least restrictive means (unless you can think of another) of achieving the CSI of keeping prohibited classes from owning firearms. I would expect the analysis to go like that.

On nukes:

Nuclear arms are a relatively recent development in the field on warfare. There has never been a weapon like them prior to the 20th century. Their use in war has been extraordinarily rare, only twice in all of history. They have never been available to the general public on any basis, and they have been denied to the vast majority of governments on this planet. Their role, even in the arsenals of those few governments that possess them are to be used as a strategic nation busting weapon at hundreds or thousands of miles. There is a CSI in limiting the proliferation and use of these weapons that can only be reasonably served by denying their ownership and use to tightly controlled and directed government facilities. There is no lesser restrictive means available to serve that interest. Q.E.D.

 

[USAFNoDak]

One thing we must be aware of, is the ability of the antis to divide us in order to make it easier to conquer us. Take Tennessee Gentleman's arguement that he doesn't believe civilians ought to have select fire weapons and has the law to back him up. Yet he says he owns semiauto firearms which are now considered "assault weapons". He also says he owns handguns, which can also be classified as assault weapons if they have tow or more any set of cosmetic features, such as a detachable magazine and a barrel shroud.

We had an assault weapons ban at one point in time. Luckily, we had enough votes in congress to make sure that there was a 10 year sunset on that ban, and still had just enough votes to make sure the ban was not extended for another 10 years, if not permanently. I'm sure there were many shotgun's only firearms owners who were cheering for the assault weapons ban, just as TG cheers the NFA34. Obama wants handguns banned. Handguns have been banned in Washington, D.C. and various other cities in the US (New York and Chicago area for example). There are probably gun owners who think that's fine and since the law backs them up, they feel as if they are "right", just as TG believes he is right about the NFA ban.

For now, people will claim, "Well, these aren't really bans, technically. You can still own a select fire firearm. You just have to pay the tax and do the paperwork". What they don't tell you is that you cannot have a gun imported or manufactured after 1986. Why not? I believe the strategy, whether it will work or not, is that eventually all of the older full autos will fail and will not be able to be repaired or will be turned in because the owners no longer desire to own them. This will eventually result in a total ban, even if not "technically" so.

The same tactic was used for the assault weapons ban. There are some powerful forces now working on another assault weapons ban, hoping that democrats will gain more power in congress and have BHO as the president. He is very anti gun and would sign a new AWB in a heartbeat.

He stated he would push for a ban on CCW, NATIONWIDE. Not likely he could get that yet. But, there are plenty of gunowners who don't believe in CCW. The USSC would find no constitutional infringement with a nationwide CCW ban. As a matter of fact, back in the founders days, carrying concealed was considered to be the act of a person who had nefarious plans. Otherwise, why would he have to conceal the fact that he was armed?

So, as another poster mentioned, gunowners are a diverse group, with many different beliefs about what should and should not be allowed. There are gun owners who would like to see TG disarmed of his AR15 just as much as TG doesn't want to see other law abiding gun owners be able to buy a new M16.

Who's being reasonable. I'm sure TG would say he is. I'm sure some shotgun only firearms owners would say that they are. After all, who really needs anything more than a good old scatter gun for self defense. You could saw off the barrel(s) to a 1/4 inch longer than the NFA allows and use 00 buck shot. Very effective at close range. You can even buy a semiautomic shotgun which would then be very effective at close range. Use a pistol for backup and you could run off most home invaders.

When we divide up into groups who publicly accept bans on certain types of firearms, the anti's gain strength. The media will put forth only the data which shows gun owners saying that civilians shouldn't be able to own certain types of firearms. The non gun owning public then jumps on that bandwagon, because, after all, many gunowners have taken that same stand. That's how the media manipulates it. Then the congress critters see this happening. They want to side with the majority, because they believe that is what will get them elected or re elected.

We have been lucky so far in that we have been able to fight off many attempts to "ban" firearms, but not all of them. NFA, AWB, Sullivan Act, Morton Grove, Chicago, Washington, DC. Several states have bans on assault weapons. More are likely to follow.

If another assault weapons ban is passed, will TG say that's OK because there is a law passed and the general public supports it. The anti's will say that gun owners are being radical for wanting to own such dangerous weapons. They are designed only to kill large numbers of people. The state has a compelling interest in banning such weapons for public safety.

 

[YukonKid]

You know Crash, I think that the percent of crime carried out with automatic weapons would increase if there were less restrictions on them Thats just my logic though, it seems to make sense that there are not many used in crimes because there are not that many around.

This seems to be another "is it ok for civilians to be able to obtain any amount of firepower that they can afford" thread. Am I correct?

YK

P.S. personally, I can afford an automatic weapon, but I do not see any point in doing so. I see no need for one, nor a practical use. I am not a soldier or a cop or overly paranoid. I have never heard a logical argument presented by anyone as to why they need a fully automatic weapon.

 

[mvpel]

I can think of a certain 800,000 Rwandan citizens who could have used a few MP5 select-fire machine guns for civilian self-defense.

Yukon - there you go, using the anti's terminology of "need." As far as they're concerned, nobody "needs" any kind of gun at all, "that's what the police are for."

I should no more have to explain to you or anyone else why I do or don't "need" a machine gun than I should have to explain why I "need" to attend religious services or "need" to have locks on my front doors.

You're also talking like someone who's never fired a full-auto. If you had, you'd know that they're a hell of a fun way to turn money into noise. Less noise, if you have a suppressor along with it. Give us a ring the next time you find yourself in New Hampshire and we'll introduce you to the entertainment value of full-auto firearms. A local range here even has a IPSC course, I reckon it'd be good fun to do that with an MP5.

 

[crashm1]

You know Crash, I think that the percent of crime carried out with automatic weapons would increase if there were less restrictions on them Thats just my logic though, it seems to make sense that there are not many used in crimes because there are not that many around.

Yukon Kid,
Let's think about this a little, there is a market for illegal guns. We also know that the laws of supply and demand will insure a supply of things in demand whether legal or not. It's easy enough to make a lightning link or auto sear with a hack saw, vise and a file, it's even easier with unregulated CNC equipment that if there was really a need in the criminal market the need would be filled either domestically or by being imported by some budding entrepenuer.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Ah, the garage sale is FINALLY over. Now to weighier things.

First Mr. Webley,

You're missing the point....Just because something is potentially dangerous, that does not mean that it's access to law abiding citizens should be severely restricted

No sir, you are missing the point. Potential danger is not the issue. Inherent danger is. Guns are designed to kill, therefore they are inherently dangerous to human and perhaps some animal life. Pesticides are inherently dangerous to bugs etc. Guns are regulated because of their inherent danger and that danger must be balanced against the public good even though we have a right to possess some of them.

Actually, I did when I stated the following in post #43

You must not be a lawyer either. I see no strict scrutiny criteria applied in your argument other than "well, I know I am safe and won't hurt anybody intetionally so I should have them". Where is the scrutiny there? That is nothing more than your opinion which has no more weight than mine. Sorry, you lose and the NFA is still in effect.

You're not hearing me, I said that I think the majority of the American People would support less restriction on fully-automatic weapons if the reasoning was explained to them. I have never proposed a complete lack of restrictions on firearms, just very few.

I hear you but you are wrong IMHO. The american people don't want unregulated machine guns and grenade launchers or the NFA would be repealed. Even the NRA won't take it on. Educate them all you want but I think most of them think and I agree that other than a hobby curio type of thing they should be closely regulated more so than weapons common to civilian ownership.

SCOTUS can interpret it any way they want, it does not change the Framer's intent nor does it change how it should be.

Again your opinion, I disagree but the SCOTUS opinion is the only one that matters.

It would be nearly impossible to detonate a nuclear, biological, or chemical device in this country without putting the lives of innocent people at risk. Likewise, how do propose someone should safely store VX nerve gas in their home?

Who says you have to use it? You are arguing the right to have it. Some types of modern nerve gas isn't hard to store and if it is a non-persistent type won't spread beyond the immediate area it is deposited in. Anyway, based on yoour previous statement you are looking to use these things against an invading army so at that point who cares how it operates?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Now Mr. HK,

Q.E.D.

Not so fast my friend!

There has never been a time in our history when fully automatic weapons were banned to the citizen by the federal government. It would be difficult to assert at this late date that suddenly there is a CSI to deny ownership.

I have never asserted such. I have only said that the 2A does not protect the right of civilians to own full auto and their owning such may be regulated. The NFA does not ban full auto so your argument starts out on the wrong premise.

The transfer tax under the NFA was meant to be prohibitive and does not serve a CSI.

Why doesn't it serve a CSI? Based on what criteria?

The 1986 was meant to shrink the pool of available FA firearms and does not serve a CSI.

Just your saying something does not serve a state interest without any supporting logic or evidence is just your opinion. I can just say: "It does serve a stae interest" and leave it at that?

Nuclear arms are a relatively recent development in the field on warfare.

Oh, so new weapons can be banned? Didn't you or webley says something like this:

While they may or may not have been able to envision the weapons of today, I find it hard to believe that the Framers, who were brilliant enough to produce an elastic constitution that's lasted two centuries, didn't give any consideration to advances in weapons design.

New weapons? Shouldn't be a disqualifier.

They have never been available to the general public on any basis,

Same with most military weapons. And full auto was rarely if ever used by the law-abiding public prior to the NFA either. Anyway, the machinegunners will say that doesn't matter because unfair laws like the NFA kept people unconstitutionally from owning them.

There is a CSI in limiting the proliferation and use of these weapons

Based on what? Pray tell not their inherent danger! Anyway, webley says he is a good guy and won't use them to hurt anybody and he shouldn't be subjected to a prior restraint of his rights.

Based on your argument I declare there is no CSI to prohibit your possession of a tactical nuke. wonder how much it will cost you?

This is one of the problems you run into when you try to establish the 2A as an absolute right with no restrictions.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Take Tennessee Gentleman's arguement that he doesn't believe civilians ought to have select fire weapons and has the law to back him up.

Never said that. Whenever I post about this stuff I always get lumped in with antigunners and so I will have to refresh everyone's memory. I have never said that a) guns or full auto weapons are evil. b) that no civilian should ever own a full auto weapon c) that full auto weapons should be confiscated.

What I have said is that I agree with Mr. Gura and probably the SCOTUS that weapons in common use by civilians are what the 2A protects against heavy regulation. That is where I and they draw the line. I am not a purist on the 2A or any amendment and I am not a libertarian.

When we divide up into groups who publicly accept bans on certain types of firearms, the anti's gain strength.

USAFNoDak, not to pick on you but I think this debate is far more complex and sophisticated than you or many others may believe. Being an ideologue can sometimes make you blind. That is true with us and the antis too. Psychologists will tell you that enemies will tend to create mirror-images of themselves in their perceptions. The anits think we are uniformed louts and we think the same of them. Not everything is black and white in this debate. I may support the NFA but oppose the AWB. I may support NICS but oppose Registration. There is a large spectrum of beliefs our there about gun politics. Not everybody wants to ban all guns who support gun control measures. Not everybody who support gun rights believes that citizens should be able to own any weapon they wish. AND THAT MATTERS! Why? Because like all debate about the constitution there is not any self-evident pure true right. The document is too vague for that and if these truths were that self-evident I submit there would be no argument. So the designers left it up to our branches of government to interpret this constitution. So it matters what others think, at least in a democracy.

If another assault weapons ban is passed, will TG say that's OK because there is a law passed and the general public supports it.

I will oppose it like I did the last one. I voted the bums out. USAFNoDak, resist the urge to demand intellectual orthodoxy! That is for Nazis and Facists. Accept what we have in common and fight together with us on what we can win. You ain't gonna get mine or a lot of other shooters support on full auto, or other purely military weapons. Maybe on this website, but I don't think you have suport beyond these cyberwalls. My .02 cents

 

[Jermtheory]

Potential danger is not the issue. Inherent danger is. Guns are designed to kill, therefore they are inherently dangerous to human and perhaps some animal life.

in practical terms it still takes either intent or negligence in order for a firearm to be destructive...the same can be said of many items to varying degree's,regardless of there designed usage.

by your logic many things that are not "inherently dangerous",because they werent "designed to kill",are in fact far more dangerous in real terms,than items which are "inherently dangerous".

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

by your logic many things that are not "inherently dangerous",because they werent "designed to kill",are in fact far more dangerous in real terms,than items which are "inherently dangerous".

Such as? And how are you measuring that?

 

[RedneckFur]

More people are killed by cars than guns every year in the US. There are more guns than cars in the US.

Cars must have been designed to kill, after all, they do such a great job of it.

I propose we ban all automobiles and motorised transport. It will save lives! Do it for the chidren!

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

More people are killed by cars than guns every year in the US. There are more guns than cars in the US.

Should we regulate guns like we do cars?

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by YukonKid

How have my second amendment rights been infringed upon Webley? I hunt more than ever, I have purchased more guns this year than any other, I do not see weapons going away.

Well you have to pay a special tax and get a government permission slip to own a full auto or carry a handgun. Of course, if you live in Illinois or Wisconsin you can't carry a handgun at all and if you live in Vermont or Alaska you only need the permission slip for full auto. If we all went along believing that our 2nd Amendment rights weren't being infringed, I suspect we would be seeing quite a lot more guns going away.

You know Crash, I think that the percent of crime carried out with automatic weapons would increase if there were less restrictions on them Thats just my logic though, it seems to make sense that there are not many used in crimes because there are not that many around.

Actually, it's quite probable that their restriction has little or no bearing on their use in crimes. So-called "Assault Weapons" were banned or severely regulated for 10 years and it had very little effect on their use in crimes (which was and remains quite low). Also, it is not at all hard to illegally modify a semi-automatic weapon to make it fully automatic yet we still don't see full-autos being used in crimes very much. Could it be not because they're regulated, but because very few fully-automatic weapons are easily concealable and controllable?

P.S. personally, I can afford an automatic weapon, but I do not see any point in doing so. I see no need for one, nor a practical use. I am not a soldier or a cop or overly paranoid. I have never heard a logical argument presented by anyone as to why they need a fully automatic weapon.

Honestly, I don't have a great desire for one either. But why should we have to demonstrate a need in order to own something? Do you really need a television? Wouldn't a radio suffice? Just because I don't need something doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to have it.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

No sir, you are missing the point. Potential danger is not the issue. Inherent danger is. Guns are designed to kill, therefore they are inherently dangerous to human and perhaps some animal life. Pesticides are inherently dangerous to bugs etc. Guns are regulated because of their inherent danger and that danger must be balanced against the public good even though we have a right to possess some of them.

What does the purpose of their design have to do with anything? A properly functioning gun is not dangerous in the least unless someone operates it, period. Many things are used for purposes they weren't originally designed for. Whether or not a firearm is designed to kill is irrelevant. A properly functioning firearm presents absolutely no danger to the public good unless misused.

You must not be a lawyer either. I see no strict scrutiny criteria applied in your argument other than "well, I know I am safe and won't hurt anybody intetionally so I should have them". Where is the scrutiny there? That is nothing more than your opinion which has no more weight than mine. Sorry, you lose and the NFA is still in effect.

No, I'm not a lawyer nor do I claim to be. Are you a lawyer? If you are can you prove it or is it just a claim made anonymously on the internet? Where in any of my posts have I ever even used the term "strict scrutiny?" When I started the thread, I posted this

Just how far does the government have a right to regulate the posession and/or use of arms? My view is this, the government does have an extremely limited right to do so. Basically, I think it's OK to limit the rights of those who have violent criminal histories, chronically abuse drugs or alcohol (i.e. multiple offences), and those who have been demonstrated to be mentally unstable to the point of being a danger to themselves and/or others. I also think that it's reasonable to strictly regulate and/or prohibit weapons that are extremely difficult or impossible to handle/posess/operate safely such as chemical, biological, and nuclear materials as well as certain types (though certainly not all) of explosives. Beyond that, shall not be infringed seems pretty clear to me. I am interested to hear everyone's views on this subject.

Of course you're gong to see a lot of opinions here. I asked for them. I have given my opinion and the reasoning behind it.

I hear you but you are wrong IMHO. The american people don't want unregulated machine guns and grenade launchers or the NFA would be repealed. Even the NRA won't take it on. Educate them all you want but I think most of them think and I agree that other than a hobby curio type of thing they should be closely regulated more so than weapons common to civilian ownership.

Nor do I want unregulated guns of any sort as I've made clear numerous times. However, unless a person is barred from owning any type of gun in the first place, I've yet to see exactly why you or I should have to pay a tax stamp and register with the federal government in order to own something that we can both own and operate responsibly and safely.

Again your opinion, I disagree but the SCOTUS opinion is the only one that matters.

SCOTUS was once of the opinion that a slave could not sue his master for freedom upon relocation from a slave state to a free one. Just because it was SCOTUS that held the opinion, did that make it right? SCOTUS is made up of people who are like all the rest of us imperfect and not immune to faults or mistakes.

Who says you have to use it? You are arguing the right to have it. Some types of modern nerve gas isn't hard to store and if it is a non-persistent type won't spread beyond the immediate area it is deposited in. Anyway, based on yoour previous statement you are looking to use these things against an invading army so at that point who cares how it operates?

Well, in that case, if you want to make the law that you can own a suitcase nuke or non-persistent nerve gas but never, ever use it go ahead. I doubt you'll have many law-abiding people spending very large amounts of their money for something that they cannot use. However, if you made the law that way, the criminal element could acquire these weapons much more easily because after all you wouldn't need government security clearance to access something available to the general public would you. I think we've already ascertained that unless you want to destroy all semi-automatic firearms outside of police and military hands that you simply won't be able to keep full-autos out of the hands of properly motivated criminals, but a nuclear device or nerve gas isn't so easily fabricated (nor are the methods to fabricate many of them even public knowledge). If you were to use a nuclear device or nerve gas against an invading army, exactly how where would you use it that wouldn't put the lives of innocent people around them in danger?

Look at it this way: I think most people would find it unreasonable to ban a gasoline generator but would still take issue with you building your own nuclear reactor. But wait, they're both designed with the same goal in mind and can both be operated safely with enough money and equipment. Does this mean that it's reasonable to subject a gasoline generator to the same regulation and restrictions as a nuclear reactor?

Accept what we have in common and fight together with us on what we can win.

Just because something is not popular or unlikely doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for. Slavery was fought for nearly a hundred years and it's end seemed impossible at one point in time, did that make it not worth fighting for?

Quote:
by your logic many things that are not "inherently dangerous",because they werent "designed to kill",are in fact far more dangerous in real terms,than items which are "inherently dangerous".

Such as? And how are you measuring that?

Nitroglycerin is extremely dangerous if not handled with extreme care but it wasn't designed to kill (it was designed as a mining and construction tool).

Should we regulate guns like we do cars?

Do cars have a constitutional amendment protecting them?

 

[YukonKid]

Hmm, I am sorry that I am considered a "anti" just because I cannot think of a reasonable use for a fully automatic weapon. I enjoy the shooting sports and hunting just as much as anyone else on the board, I just do not see why civilians need automatics.

mvpel, I am not looking to get into an argument at all. That serves no purpose and just makes the mods angry. I actually have fired several full autos and although it did give me pleasure and enjoyment I do not think it was amazing enough to want to buy my own.

All of my firearms are capable of killing, but they were not all designed for it. Full autos have no other purpose other than to kill, and I don't think that the average citizen does that very often. Everything has a job, my Rubicon is wheeling, my Silverado is for towing and my Yukon is for fun, guns are the same.

I don't think the people in the poor african countries have food or medical supplies, maybe we should focus more on those before we drop in cases of weapons.

YK

Ps, i love discussing this kind of thing, but i want to keep it civil so the mods don't shut it down.

 

[Webleymkv]

Hmm, I am sorry that I am considered a "anti" just because I cannot think of a reasonable use for a fully automatic weapon. I enjoy the shooting sports and hunting just as much as anyone else on the board, I just do not see why civilians need automatics.

I've still yet to understand why we should have to need something in order to own it.

All of my firearms are capable of killing, but they were not all designed for it. Full autos have no other purpose other than to kill, and I don't think that the average citizen does that very often. Everything has a job, my Rubicon is wheeling, my Silverado is for towing and my Yukon is for fun, guns are the same.

Can a full-auto not have the same purpose as your Yukon (fun)? Perhaps I'd like to own a Thompson for it's historical value. Perhaps I'd like to own a AN-94 because I appreciate it as a marvel of engineering. While the intention of the gun's designer may be one thing, it's purpose is determined by it's user. Besides, a guns purpose is irrelevant so long as it isn't anything illegal or immoral.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Not everybody who support gun rights believes that citizens should be able to own any weapon they wish. AND THAT MATTERS! Why? Because like all debate about the constitution there is not any self-evident pure true right. The document is too vague for that and if these truths were that self-evident I submit there would be no argument. So the designers left it up to our branches of government to interpret this constitution. So it matters what others think, at least in a democracy.

I do not believe that citizens should be able to own any weapon they wish. This would include suitcase nukes, high explosives, nuclear missiles, and possibly others. The destruction from the misuse or an accident with those types of weapons, even if they are possessed by the law abiding citizens, poses a widespread danger to the public at large. That is not the same as a select fire firearm, such as an M16. How about 3 round burst select fire weapons. How are they any more inherently dangerous than an AR15? Some gun owners wish to draw the line at certain guns being "not for civilian use" because they don't see a need to have them. This is why some shotgun owners climb on the bandwagon to ban assault weapons and handguns. I would be perfectly comfortable with full auto weapons requiring a back ground check, but we already have that for all firearms now. I don't see any issue with law abiding citizens owning select fire firearms. They are not more "inherently dangerous" than a semiauto firearm. Who cares if you shoot a guy with 20 bullets vs. 5. They'd probably be just as dead.

If another assault weapons ban is passed, will TG say that's OK because there is a law passed and the general public supports it.

I will oppose it like I did the last one. I voted the bums out. USAFNoDak, resist the urge to demand intellectual orthodoxy! That is for Nazis and Facists. Accept what we have in common and fight together with us on what we can win. You ain't gonna get mine or a lot of other shooters support on full auto, or other purely military weapons. Maybe on this website, but I don't think you have suport beyond these cyberwalls. My .02 cents
__________________

And I oppose the NFA and the 86 ban on new select fire firearms. I will tend and continue to vote against people who continue to push for bans on any type of firearms. In some aspects we are on the same side. We part ways on select fire. I am on the losing side for now with respect to that issue. But I will continue to fight. Just as blacks were on the losing side of the slavery issue for a very long time. Even the USSC continued to rule against them. Thank God there were people such as Rosa Parks, MKL, and others, who wouldn't accept that they were on the losing side, and continued to fight. It was a long struggle, and many of them never saw freedom in their lifetimes. But their struggle continued in spirit with others who followed. Some of us gun owners will continue to struggle against what we see as a violation of our rights. This will be the case regardless if even other gun owners think of us as losers or radicals. Remember, our founding fathers were also considered losers and radicals, even by some of their fellow americans, who wished for us not to appear too hell bent on taking on the British. The Torries wanted to go along to get along. They ended up being the losers in the end, along with King George and the British military.

And by the way, I demand intellectual honesty, not orthodoxy. The NAZI's used intellectual dishonesty as they took over. They convinced "the people" of Germany that they didn't need any guns. This is why I was livid when our media showed video clips of law enforcement officers firing full auto firearms when reporting on the topic of the assault weapons ban, which had nothing to do with full auto. It was done with intellectual dishonesty to fool John Q. Public into thinking that the term "assault weapon" was synonimous with "machine gun". Since the public had been convinced that machine guns are "too dangerous", they then also supported the AWB. We had that in place for 10 years and almost another 10. There are politicians who want it to be permanent. With an Obama administration and democrats in full control of the House and the Senate, they have a reasonable shot at making that happen.

 

[44 AMP]

How far do you take this mindset?

I enjoy the shooting sports and hunting just as much as anyone else on the board, I just do not see why civilians need automatics.

emphasis added

How far do you go along with the goverrnment legislating what we can own, based on their concept of our need?

I object to all laws regulating property based on someone else's idea of what I need. Let me make the rules and I just might decide that nobody needs a color TV, more than one car, or needs to earn more than $50,000 a year. Would you be happy with those needs? I wouldn't, but then, if I was making the rules, I would make an exception for me.

The whole concept of need when it comes to ownership of private property bothers me. I don't think it sits well with the Constitutional concept of pursuit of happiness. I do think that we should have no laws determining what guns are "good" or "bad". Why bother? We have laws that clearly state you cannot kill or shoot someone for fun and priofit, what more is needed? Nothing, IMNHO. You shoot someone you shouldn't, the axe should come down on you. Period. Doesn't matter to me what you shoot them with, and chances are it doesn't matter to the person you shot either.

If I cut someone's throat with a box cutter, the legal penalty is the same as if I caught them with a burst from a belt fed. Why do we consistantly waste our time and money with all the other crap? Maybe because those people who do not enjoy guns and shooting are jealous of our fun. They are such small minded petty people that they cannot concieve of anyone enjoying themselves in a manner they do not. All the laws restricting any and every facet of firearms ownership have not done away with violence, nor can they. England has virtually removed both the ownership of firearms and the legal right to self defense from her people, and crime is soaring. Now they are considering banning knives, as if that will help with their problem. They think so, but I kind of doubt it.

As long as people accept the idea that guns are somehow different that any other machine made by man, because they are designed to "kill", and that we need special restrictions on them because of that, we will not make any true progress against the real root cause of violence, evil intent in the mind of man.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Hmm, I am sorry that I am considered a "anti" just because I cannot think of a reasonable use for a fully automatic weapon. I enjoy the shooting sports and hunting just as much as anyone else on the board, I just do not see why civilians need automatics.

mvpel, I am not looking to get into an argument at all. That serves no purpose and just makes the mods angry. I actually have fired several full autos and although it did give me pleasure and enjoyment I do not think it was amazing enough to want to buy my own.

All of my firearms are capable of killing, but they were not all designed for it. Full autos have no other purpose other than to kill, and I don't think that the average citizen does that very often. Everything has a job, my Rubicon is wheeling, my Silverado is for towing and my Yukon is for fun, guns are the same.

I love to drive fast cars, but I don't see why any citizen needs to own a Viper, a Corvette, or a Ford GT. They were designed to go faster than any speed limit we have, with possibly the exception being Montana. I had a fellow worker who killed himself when he crashed his Vette by trying to take a corner too fast.

I have driven a Vette, but I see no need to own one. They aren't practical, they cost too much, and they are designed to break the speed limits.

I agree that basing legal possession on a "need" is ceding too much power to an ever growing and more powerful government.

 

[YukonKid]

Oh indeed Webley, full autos are a lot fun, just like 4x4's are for me. I am not going even attempt to tell people what they do with their weapons, its up to them. I hunt and shoot for fun. I am not paranoid, I do not believe that the government is out to get me but I still have a HD shotgun incase someone is stupid (smart) enough to get past the fences, lights, detectors and dogs.

I do not need a full auto, no one does. Like you said, any activity that is done with a weapon can be done with something better suited for the task than a full auto, the thing they do best is kill...that is not arguable. Not hunting, not target shooting, not clays or bulls-eye, just for killing.

I do not even understand what the fuss is about, you can still go out and buy one, so go do it if you want one that bad or feel that strongly.

YK

 

[YukonKid]

So much disagreement... I love it, just goes to show that not all shooters are alike.

call me crazy AMP 44 but I believe that it might be easier to kill a mass amount of people with a full auto then a box cutter, but I will not rule it out as a threat to my physical body. I hear what your saying, I do understand that no one can tell you what to do or anything like that, the difference is the guns are not the same as cars or horses or cheese graters...they kill things, thats what they do.

USDAk, I can kind of see what your saying, but i cannot tell if there is sarcasm in there or not. I have never been into fast cars, I like lifted wheeling machines. The few times I have driven some quick machines (AMG, Vette, Porsche, Lambo and one more I am forgetting) I had a good time. It was fun and legal where we were doing it (track and airfield). I do not think that it is ok to drive that fast on normal roads, because it is unsafe to other drivers if you are going that fast.

If you think our government is restrictive, I suggest you go somewhere else and see what its like... because no where else will be as free as here.

YK

also, since it seems to be me vs. everyone lets try not to do personal attacks. I am still waiting (like I have been for years) for someone to present me a logical argument as to why a good responsible gun owner needs a full auto.